IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reproducibility of deep learning in digital pathology whole slide image analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Christina Fell
  • Mahnaz Mohammadi
  • David Morrison
  • Ognjen Arandjelovic
  • Peter Caie
  • David Harris-Birtill

Abstract

For a method to be widely adopted in medical research or clinical practice, it needs to be reproducible so that clinicians and regulators can have confidence in its use. Machine learning and deep learning have a particular set of challenges around reproducibility. Small differences in the settings or the data used for training a model can lead to large differences in the outcomes of experiments. In this work, three top-performing algorithms from the Camelyon grand challenges are reproduced using only information presented in the associated papers and the results are then compared to those reported. Seemingly minor details were found to be critical to performance and yet their importance is difficult to appreciate until the actual reproduction is attempted. We observed that authors generally describe the key technical aspects of their models well but fail to maintain the same reporting standards when it comes to data preprocessing which is essential to reproducibility. As an important contribution of the present study and its findings, we introduce a reproducibility checklist that tabulates information that needs to be reported in histopathology ML-based work in order to make it reproducible.Author summary: For a method to be used a lot in medical research or clinical practice, it needs to be able to be reproduced so that people can trust it. Machine learning and deep learning have some challenges around this. For example, small changes in how a model is trained can lead to significant changes in the results of experiments. This makes it essential that researchers report how they do things in enough detail for the results of their experiments to be reproducible. In this work, we looked at three different algorithms used for digital pathology image analysis. We tried to reproduce them using only the information reported in their papers. We confirmed that even minor details could be essential. Authors often do not report all the details needed to reproduce their work. We also created a checklist of things that need to be reported to help other researchers make their work reproducible.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina Fell & Mahnaz Mohammadi & David Morrison & Ognjen Arandjelovic & Peter Caie & David Harris-Birtill, 2022. "Reproducibility of deep learning in digital pathology whole slide image analysis," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(12), pages 1-21, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000145
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000145
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000145&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000145?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lena Maier-Hein & Matthias Eisenmann & Annika Reinke & Sinan Onogur & Marko Stankovic & Patrick Scholz & Tal Arbel & Hrvoje Bogunovic & Andrew P. Bradley & Aaron Carass & Carolin Feldmann & Alejandro , 2018. "Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michela Antonelli & Annika Reinke & Spyridon Bakas & Keyvan Farahani & Annette Kopp-Schneider & Bennett A. Landman & Geert Litjens & Bjoern Menze & Olaf Ronneberger & Ronald M. Summers & Bram Ginneken, 2022. "The Medical Segmentation Decathlon," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Yashvardhan Jain & Leah L. Godwin & Sripad Joshi & Shriya Mandarapu & Trang Le & Cecilia Lindskog & Emma Lundberg & Katy Börner, 2023. "Segmenting functional tissue units across human organs using community-driven development of generalizable machine learning algorithms," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.